“It is the moment when what was chaos is now seen as having a center of gravity. There is a shape where a moment ago there was none.”

—-

Peter Elbow

=====================

“If one shifts the center of gravity of life out of life into the “Beyond” – into nothingness – one has deprived life as such of its center of gravity.”

―

Friedrich Nietzsche

===================

Well.

Given the recent study showing 42 people have the same wealth as maybe 50% of the world’s population I thought I would republish this awesome study completed in late 2010 called “Global Economy’s Shifting Centre of Gravity.”

Ok.

Maybe not awesome to some people … but to me? Fascinating reading <I actually read it over a vacation sipping some cocktails>.

Here is the net:

In 1980 the global economy’s center of gravity was somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.

In 2010 the center of gravity shifted to just east of Helsinki/Bucharest latitude (oddly the longitude doesn’t seem to vary much over time in this modeling).

In 2049 the center of gravity will shift almost two-thirds of the earth’s radius from the 1980 center to somewhere say in west Asia.

What the heck does his have to do with wealth inequality? Well. Because wealth is accumulating on 2 dimensions – on both the y axis as well as the x axis <just not at the same rate>.

Let’s just say that the x axis is shifting upwards globally <average wealth of global individual is improving>. This is good. This means the overall tide is rising.

Let’s just say that the people on the y axis are disproportionately reaping the benfis of a better global wealth improvement. That is bad. This means few continue to benefit at the overall expense of the many <yes, people will haggle with how I worded that>.

All that said … I would envision most people wouldn’t be surprised by this. But I am fairly sure we talk about the y axis all the time and forget to mention the x-axis … that’s my point here.

Anyway. There are some nuances to the study I mentioned that should make people think a bit.

Don’t panic.

I am not going to go into the modeling analytics … but suffice it to say this researcher at The London School of Economics knows his shit and figured out a way to analyze economic power not by clustering <which is an important distinction> but rather center of gravity <it’s kind of like figuring out how to measure the dynamic behavior of spatial economic distribution rather than simplistic clustering>. The study offered truly fascinating cylindrical spatial global maps in which it is almost like viewing an economic holographic image.

I will spare you. What I won’t spare you is what this analytic stuff means.

Suffice it to say that the income dynamics of the average location of the planet’s economic activity is shifting.

I think we all knew this in our gut but now we have actual proof. And it’s kind of sobering proof for those of us in the Western hemisphere <I include South America, Latin America and North America into this pot of people. That global economic activity moves east in this graphic fashion shows the rapid growth in incomes going to the large chunks of humanity who live in India, Africa, China and the rest of East Asia.

<note: population itself changes much more gradually therefore this sharp east-directed rise of the rest is not driven by population growth>

Overall this shift is a reflection of a lot of good things happening in the world <not America getting weaker but rather America becoming a smaller larger global component>. For example 600 million people have been lifted from extreme poverty – a large and rapid improvement in the well-being of humanity that is unprecedented in the history of this planet.

And there is more is to come. In particular, Africa and China will remain growth areas <albeit both in different ways> and poverty will continue to be eradicated.

Now.

All of this could be concerning in a variety of ways.

First.

This isn’t just about money, or income, this is about power. Economic shifts lead to governmental shifts … and intellectual shifts.

Yeah. Mind power. Sorry folks … it isn’t democracy <or any real ‘freedom of’ … although some people may debate the cause/effect of that relationship>. When economic shift permits an elevation of intellectual power that tends to be the formula for sustained shift in economical gravitational pull. I even have an example on economic opportunity … and economic opportunity lost.

We have faced a similar foundational economic re-construct situation before … only to have the economic center of gravity remain skewed toward the western hemisphere. And although the economic center of gravity was threatened at that time … there wasn’t the intellectual shift attached to the economic shift to sustain the movement.

Let’s look back at the last time we may have faced something like this.

The cold war. Soviet Union versus United States <actually … the rest of the world>. The reality is that while Russia tried to fill the void <of prosperity … or maybe better said … ‘better than what is’> and sought to increase its global engagement under the guise of government doctrine it was actually an economic battle. Huh? Think people labor versus capitalism <simplistic but you get the point>. Russia was certainly good at destroying governments and economic construct. However, because of their economic corruption they were unsuccessful in replacing what they destroyed.

Ultimately that was their failure … not a failure of communism but a failure of economy. Which, in the end, meant their failure to sustain an economic shift translated into the fact intellectual power was never maximized.

I promise you that mistake will not happen again. In fact it is happening all over again <not Russia but Eastern Hemisphere & Africa> but … but this economic shift is being sustained. There are two <to me> primary locations pulling the center of gravity. And I will outline each <and why we in the western hemisphere should sit up and pay attention>.

The two? China & Africa <some people may argue India>.

China.

They don’t necessarily destroy. In fact they do the opposite. They simply take less than successful scenarios and through economic success makes each … well … more successful.

Ok. There is a point here. What most Americans <let’s say ‘outsiders’ in general> fail to see is the “more successful” part. Many people measure success off of what we have <or how high is up>. In fact it is through those eyes that we tend to damn China.

Take a step back.

As Mao suggested for China … success would be enabling the majority to afford another pair of shoes. Not a mansion … heck … not even a house … just another pair of shoes … for a gazillion people. And he did it. And China has continued to grow.

Sure. It becomes more difficult from there. But that’s not the point. Other ‘industrialized’ countries measure them in a different way and are being foolish by doing so. China is being successful <for a number of reasons> but because they have taken what they have done well internally within their own country <helped a segment make the next step up> and go elsewhere and offer the same opportunity. They are creating an infrastructure within emerging countries, and emerging economies, <outside of China> to ‘be better than what is.’

In Africa it is transportation and communication interface. In southeast Asia its internal infrastructure.

China is becoming an enabler rather than a destroyer.

In Africa the picture continues to improve.

Wars have subsided and governments have stabilized and they are also adopting their own quasi capitalist-communist economic attitude, i.e., private subsidized by government. Their average GDP has consistently grown almost 5% annually. Over the past 8 years over 80 million households have been elevated above poverty level – to a level where discretionary spending commences in the household. Telecommunications, banking and retailing is flourishing.

This reflects a significant rise in the African urban consumer. In 1980 28% of Africans lived in an urban environment and today over 40% do. In countries where infrastructure is isolated, typically in more urban environments, this means that a more significant portion of the population has access to education, skills development and jobs <note: remember my point on mind power>. In addition, African governments are increasingly adopting policies to maintain the economic growth as they privatize state-owned businesses, open lines of trade <foreign>, strengthen legal systems and provide well needed physical & social infrastructure (a byproduct of that last factor is an increased labor force and economic distribution among the population).

So.

Having used those examples maybe I am maybe actually suggesting the bigger thought is a new communist-capitalism attitude shifting the economic center of gravity <I am erring on the side in my point of view that USA isn’t doing something wrong but rather that others are doing something well>.

I do find it impressive that traditional & evolving governments have attained this balance of communism embracing capitalism. Historically, the two are ideologically irreconcilable. Yet even the traditional communist based governments are proving to be quite pragmatic in supporting pro-growth economic policies <by non traditional communist means>.

China unapologetically clings to communism in every other sense of government policy. A number of more dictatorial based governments in Africa. Everyone should note it is Africa’s more quickly growing economies, characterized by low, stable business tax rates, responsible government spending, reasonable levels of regulation and incentives for business expansion, which certainly represent the highest growth opportunities.

As a result, their economies are expanding, businesses are thriving …. and maybe more importantly … the population is gaining a better way of living.

Once again … in my words … better than what they had.

Yes.

It is interesting to me that it is the economies of communist <or communist like> governments are thriving due to capitalism and responsible pro-growth economic policies. America has taught them well. And because of all that we are seeing a shift in the economic center of gravity.

Anyway.

Sorry. I digressed.

Getting back to the center of gravity. This study reflects how we should be looking at things. Millions of millions of people in developing countries are becoming more wealthy.

Exorbitantly? Nope.

Wealthier? Yes.

Simply moving all developing countries <or the majority … call it a ‘large mass’> to non-poverty from poverty is a massive shift. And by doing so it enables that population to be more productive. More healthy. More educated. More knowledgeable. This is simple shit. But we in the ‘industrialized world’ get caught up in the wrong issues … we assess success by where we are today .. <silly silly people>.

Ok.

Be careful with what I say next.

While USA focuses on government constitutional aspects and “enhancing their constitutional situation” … China is focused on economy.

Now.

I am a HUGE freedom of guy. But. If you want to grow and expand your government/country/culture more … a good economy is a really good thing. But having a realistic point of view on economy is an even better thing. Maybe if we look at the shifting economic center of gravity here in the western hemisphere we shouldn’t look at it as a loss of stature but rather maybe we should seek to gain some learning.

Is this post a message to our government and regulators? Nope.

This is a message to you & I that we have it pretty good here in the good ole USofA.

Is it as good economically as it was? Nope. Is it good? Yup.

This is a message to you & I that people in other countries also want their version of ‘self actualization’ and if economically it comes within grasp … they will try and grab it.

This is not a warning or threat but a suggestion this is an attitude issue for ‘we the people.’ Because with the right attitude then we can create the right behavior. But that is my next economic article. A rant on the everyday American’s economic behavior <because other cultures aren’t as addicted to spending & having stuff as we are>.

In the end.

The economic center of gravity was always going to be tugged away from America as the sheer numbers of the ‘rest of the world’ starting generating … well … economy. However, America needs to remember that at the core of economic gravity is not making shit … its mind power. The smarter the population, the healthier the population and, therefore, the more productive the population.

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”

—-

Plato

============

“A person who can think differently and truly on his feet will always find it difficult to sit and fit as an employee in a workplace, for his attitude & approach towards the work will often hit the ego of most co-workers.”

―

Anuj Somany

===========

“If u want to work in Corporate, then u should know how to play Chess.”

―

honeya

=============

Ok.

I was asked recently about a past job I had where I had struggled to be successful. After hemming and hawing a little <I have never really been sure what hemming or hawing was> I answered “the position required a dedicated navigator with navigator skills and I am a sledgehammer with some navigator vision.”

<note: I didn’t understand that until actually into the role & assumed responsibility>

Yeah.

I am a sledge hammer. Always have been and I assume I always will be.

I respect navigators but they are too slow for my tastes, far too often worried about political correctness and always too skewed toward what is important politically versus ‘what is the right thing to do.’

Ok.

Let me explain navigators and sledge hammers.

In business, there are just some people who see office politics <which all organizations have whether you like it or not> and they have the skills and vision to navigate them to get shit done <they also tend to benefit personally with this skill>.

In business, there are just some people who want to get the right shit done and believe if it is right then … well … it is better to just say ‘damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead’ rather than screw around with navigating people’s feelings and politics.

Now.

That doesn’t mean that sometimes a navigator isn’t more effective and that a navigator, which is tightly associated with someone who can play office politics, is always a corporate whore.

That also doesn’t mean that there aren’t navigators with good moral compasses because there are a shitload of navigator managers who are skilled organizational politicians who do not showcase questionable behavior or even distastefully ‘sucking-up’ behavior.

Pretty much any leader worth a shit takes a realistic approach to managing around workplace politics. This does not mean they are ‘political’, per se, or want to play the political game … it’s just they understand that you have to navigate competing interests, whatever resources may be available, the nuances of what is viewed as authority <and who has the authority … which is most typically “enough to hang yourself’>, the bendable organizational rules and whatever information is available.

And, to be clear, the best of the navigators have a sledge hammer in their tool box <and use it on occasion>.

And, to be clear, the best of the sledge hammers have either some navigational skills or, at minimum, navigational vision <i.e., they can ‘see’ the politics and organizational rubble affecting your path>.

Me?

I am a sledgehammer. I like to get shit done.

Always have and always will.

Okay. I like getting smart shit done. And I really like getting smart ‘right’ shit done.

The nuance between that stuff is clear … if all I did was get shit done, smart & right being set aside, politics and navigating would become almost irrelevant. Because then you are simply a doer <not a thinker or a thinker/doer>.

But even as a sledge hammer you recognize that whether you hate it, admire it, practice it or avoid it, office politics is a fact of life in any organization. And, like it or not, it’s something that you need to understand to insure not only your professional success but the success of the good shit you want to do.

Yeah. Sure.

“Politics” certainly has a negative connotation. It most often refers to strategies people use to seek advantage at the expense of others or the greater good.

In this context, it often adversely affects the working environment and relationships within it.

<and sledge hammers abhor this type of politics bullshit>

I hesitate to suggest there could ever be something called “good office politics” but some organizational expert asshats believe that is the kind of crap you do which helps you fairly promote yourself and your ideas <they call it networking and stakeholder management … I call it the ‘necessary bullshit you just have to suck up and do in order to get good shit done’>.

As a sledge hammer I realized that there were some things that a navigator was good at and I should learn if I wanted to be a more effective sledgehammer.

About the only thing I truly value in a navigator is “social astuteness.” This is the ability to read and anticipate situations – allows you to prepare, adapt and tailor your behavior based on the people and conditions around you.

In my words this is being aware of the people & what they believe and the situation organizationally.

Let’s just call this “context” <at least that is how a sledgehammer views it>.

Now.

Being aware is different than acting upon it. Being aware meant that it prepared me, and my groups, to manage the carnage or consequences of slamming your way straight thru a maze.

As a sledge hammer it pays to understand the real map, or maze, of the organization. Internal politics, more often than not, has little to do with the real organizational chart they give you when you sign on.

Someone outlined this important crap to be aware of really well:

Who are the real influencers?

Who has authority but doesn’t exercise it?

Who is respected?

Who champions or mentors others?

Who is “the brains behind the organization”?

As a sledge hammer I realized there were absolutely some things that were in my control as I bashed my way through the middle of the maze getting to where I believed an idea, or the business at large should go.

But, as a sledge hammer, I also recognized I needed to manage my own behavior <this lesson took some time … and learned thru some painful trial & error>. Through watching others and some painful trial & error you learn what works in your organization’s culture.

But you learn really fast … as in REALLY fast … that as a sledge hammer you invest exactly 0% of your time and 0 energy on:

Gossip & spreading rumors: you learn to shut up and even when you hear something you wait and assess the credibility

interpersonal conflicts – you avoid “like/dislike people” discussions and certainly do not get sucked into arguments

Integrity above all: this is a sledge hammer mantra … be professional, do not cut corners, do things right and always remember the organization’s interests

No complaining: a sledgehammer accepts it will not be easy and you don’t whine about the tough path you have chosen <because it is the path you have chosen>

Confidence: a sledgehammer is assertive not arrogant, proactive maybe edging on aggressive without ever sneaking into aggressiveness

Never personal: a sledge hammer has only one thing in focus … the good of the organization <it is NEVER personal>

Transparency: assume everything is gonna be seen anyway so you may as well share it all

Look.

Here is what I know.

……… whoa … did you guys do THAT ………..

When you are a sledgehammer and everything goes right it is not only the best in the world for you but organizationally everyone kind of goes “whoa, that was something.”

<which is kind of cool and makes it all worthwhile>

I will admit.

Being a sledgehammer is a lonelier way to conduct business than being a navigator. It isn’t that you are not liked nor does it mean you aren’t viewed as a team member at the table but navigators, I tend to believe, are just more social human beings & employees.

But sledge hammers have one thing in common … we are all homesick for an organization where we can not think about anything but getting good smart shit done.

This is about the impossible versus what is possible … and the absurd discussions that take place around it.

Let me begin where I will end <just in case you don’t want to read everything in between>.

Impossible versus possible is the ultimate Life conundrum <at least for today’s piece>.

The ‘let me tell you what is possible’people are most strident in identifying ‘the possible’ utilizing something called “an objective knowledge approach” <‘the world as it really is’>. They seek to provide their beliefs from ‘nowhere & everywhere’ or maybe better said … by providing perspective by looking at it from all angles. Well. Someone named Donna Haraway called this “the God trick.” In other words … it is impossible.

Oops.

In order to explain and clearly define ‘what is possible’ <therefore by doing so … by a process of elimination … defining a set of ‘what is impossible’> someone needs to … well … do the impossible.

Yikes.

Now there is a Life, and business, truth to ponder.

Ok.

With all that senseless nonsense, or was that serious nonsense, out of the way … let me move forward.

If you ever want to have a seriously nonsensical discussion with someone just bring up ‘impossible.’ And as soon as impossible is brought up you may as well quote Alice in Wonderland … ‘I think of 6 impossible things before breakfast.’ Personally … I have a love/hate relationship with the impossible. I truly understand that some things are impossible. Yup. Believe it or not … there are truly some of those out there. But I also have heard so many times ‘that is impossible’ only to find out it was … well … actually possible <assuming you spent some time breaking apart the impossible and putting it back together again in a way that is possible … kind of like the Rubik’s cube style of thinking> that I am quite cynical of impossible.

I also admit that I find impossible interesting … certainly more interesting than the possible. Likely my interest is they both, mixed together, can seen from two different and opposite perspectives.

Anyway.

Alice in Wonderland <and the Looking Glass> are outstanding examples of how to have serious nonsensical discussions on impossible. And it is a good reminder that while it may seem like senseless nonsense <wasted time> to us old folk … it is important serious nonsense to young people.

Alice <as in wonderland> is but a 7 year old in literature … but metaphorically she symbolizes all that the youth has to offer … she questions everything … all questions seemingly directed through an intrepid attitude and constantly using her intellect to solve problems. Oh. And she always speaks her mind.

In fact … the lesson she shares is in her growing belief that very few things “indeed were really impossible.”

A message all young people have at the forefront of their minds.

It is also a message most old people have in their mental waste can.

Just as all youth in today’s world … Alice is plucky, undaunted, and impervious to the dangers that may lie in world. These attributes typically lead the young to eagerly and curiously delve into a world seemingly challenged by being stuck only in what is possible. And … just as the young have an aggravating habit to do … Alice literally has to open the door for herself.

—————

Alice finds herself at the Duchess’s door and knocks, but to no avail. This exchange between Alice and the Frog – Footman follows:

“But what am I to do? ” said Alice.

“Anything you like,” said the Footman, and began whistling.

“Oh, there’s no use in talking to him,” said Alice desperately: “he’s perfectly idiotic!”

And she opened the door and went in.

————-

What a marvelous thought with regard to impossible … and possible.

Ah, so what am I to do? … anything you like.

The elder generation <the Frog doorman> doesn’t limit possibilities by suggesting impossibilities but rather opens up opportunities to what is possible … and empowers thinking. The answer opens up all possibilities for her. She begins to question following tried & true <accepted> beliefs and wondering by just following ‘rules’ it will get her nowhere and that it is within her power to do anything she wants … to achieve her desired results.

In this case?

She opens the door.

Once through the door?

Alice experiments as she realizes that all the traditional rules and ‘possibilities’ aren’t necessarily the only way to do things … and by experimenting not only does she make shit happen … she experiences new things <impossible things>.

Basically she is challenging what I believe philosophers call logical possibility and impossibility. I probably do not have this exactly right but this philosophical thought is something along these lines:

There are some things that we simply can’t imagine regardless of how hard we try, since they’re inherently contradictory or nonsensical. And then there are many other things that we improperly judge to be impossible for no other reason than that they don’t conform to our established ideas about how the world normally goes <Hume called these ‘matters of fact’>.

Matters of fact constitute one of two categories into which Hume sorted the things about which people make inquiries and exercise their reason. The other category is relations of ideas. Relations of ideas pertain to the truths of mathematics <2 + 2 = 4>, pure logic <frogs are frogs> and “every affirmation that is either intuitively or demonstrably certain.”

Therefore Hume suggests because the negation of any true statement of this sort is impossible it’s unimaginable <like 2 + 2 could add up to anything but 4>.

Anyway.

Imagination is essential to this type of thinking – Alice’s as well as the young. In many ways imagination is the same as … yet opposite at exactly the same time … reality. Just as the impossible is simply some warped version of possible.

This may all sound absurd … as does anything that seems impossible. Impossible rationally discussed remains in the impossible category … unfortunately … it is only when you think irrationally that impossible becomes … well … possible.

How absurd is that?

Ambrose Pierce wrote in the Devil’s Dictionary: Absurdity – A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one’s own opinion.

That which is deemed impossible is often simply a thought encapsulated within one’s own opinion.

Which is nonsensical in itself.

Making sense of the nonsensical is serious stuff. And it takes some imaginative thinking. Because, frankly, most nonsense about ‘impossible’ is actually provisional … circumstantial. In other words … change the circumstances and you can often discern a completely new & unexpected rule of cause and effect which ultimately makes the initial impossible … well … possible.

We often get frustrated by that which we expect just to … well … ‘be’ … as we challenge what we understand is the natural order of the world or the ‘accepted rules of what is … and what will be … if you follow this thinking.”

I know it is frustrating to me <but I like ‘impossible things’>.

All that said.

It makes the everyday world is frustrating to those who challenge impossible things because this type of thinking challenges most people’s desire to fit experiences in a logical framework where they can not only make sense of the relationship between cause and effect but also draw up a list of rules to insure impossible is clearly defined <and can be avoided>.

And, yet, a quest for true knowledge would suggest ignoring those ‘impossible rules’ as often as is feasible.

<that all made my head hurt>

Ok. Back to Alice as an example. Alice is on a quest for true knowledge. Wonderland <or youth> is a place where one can release inhibitions, to release preconceptions of ideas and to start really questioning to gain true wisdom and … I assume … true knowledge.

In its youthful insanity, in its complete separation from the world of adults, one can begin the long journey to true knowledge and defining truth in that impossible things are often quite readily possible.

Please note.

This is being written as a reminder to us old folk to think about this shit more often … and for my young readers who seem to post the

Making the possible from the impossible is a journey. With obstacles and twists and turns … and often some discussions that will make your head spin like the girl in The Exorcist and spew forth green stuff:

In fact … Alice shares a discussion like this:

“… I believe I can guess that,” (Alice) added aloud.

“Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?” said the March Hare.

“Exactly so,” said Alice.

“Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on.

“I do,” Alice hastily replied, “at least – at least I mean what I say – that’s the same thing, you know.”

“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “Why, you might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!”

“You might just as well say,” added the March Hare, “that ‘I like what I get’ is the same as ‘I get what I like’!”

“You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, “that ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!”

“It is the same thing to you,” said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember …

Whew. What a delightful episode in Wonderland … or, uhm, is this a business meeting I was in?

We old folk can twist words using preconceived thoughts to design impossibilities better than anyone. And the young struggle to unwind the tangled web of reasoning because … well … ‘impossible’ is a roadblock they aren’t willing to admit exists until they actually run into it.

The young rarely hesitate to discard preconceptions <those roadblocks> when they come across situations that seem to obviously refute them. In their youthful vim & vigor they display a consistent readiness to encounter reality on their own terms. An attribute, or character trait, essential in the discovery of truth … and the abolition of the impossible <we older folk have stated as truth>.

Obviously … I am overstating the youth versus older folk. Because we older folk don’t come up with our ‘that is impossible’ crap willy nilly. Our ‘matters of fact’ beliefs are based on what we have experienced … seen, smelled, touched, and tasted. It is impossible <oops … didn’t mean to use that word there> to observe a future objectively this way. It was Hume who suggested that the only reason we don’t think that the world will radically change tomorrow is that it hasn’t ever changed in this way before.

It was also Hume who believed all of our beliefs about ‘unobserved matters’ rest on the one key assumption that the future will resemble the past.

This may sound irrational … but there is no rational way of convincing someone they are wrong about this … or as a corollary … that tomorrow will be different.

You are stuck. Stuck in what is possible and the impossible behind some door you cannot see behind.

<back to Alice>

What does Alice do in this case? She literally opens the door for herself.

“What am I to do?”

The Frog Footman’s response … “anything you like.” The response opens up all possibilities.

She has the power to do anything she wants. She has the opportunity to define what is possible.

Possibilities are like opening a door that you have either been told will not open or you hesitate to open because of some preconceived notion <like in Alice’s case … she seeks permission>.

Anyway <here is the big close>.

The Duchess keenly observed, “Everything’s got a moral, if only you can find it.”

The moral of this rant/observation/babble?

Geez.

I am not sure I am qualified to offer a moral to this story.

But maybe a thought on the impossible <or a couple of thoughts>.

First thought.

While there are certainly ‘impossible’ things … there are far more possible things than we believe. In fact … maybe the problem is that most of us struggle with the infiniteness of possibilities and therefore seek to expand the ‘impossible’ to decrease the possible <and make it slightly more palatable and less stressful>.

Sound nuts? No more nuts than arguing something is impossible only to find out somebody made it possible.

Second thought.

Logical thinking about impossibilities is actually illogical <if you want to think about it effectively>.

Logical thinking shouldn’t see possible or impossible but rather possible but inappropriate actions and decision.

I say this because we are ultimately confronted by an infinite number of possibilities. Sometimes we can resolve them through simple rules and yet sometimes we need additional rules to decide which of the simple rules to use.

And when completely unfamiliar situations arise we have to imagine new rules <or use what has been believed in the past> that include or discount the previous ones therefore either redefining rules or creating new ones <in a never ending cycle>. Using that kind of logic … the only mistakes we can truly make are in our application of rules … choosing one over another.

And maybe the only mistake is to believe something is impossible.

Third thought.

Impossible is all about fear. Yup. Because the possible is comfortable. It is the known. It is the pleasant company of friends in a warm comfortable room with your favorite drink in hand speaking of this and that. The impossible is the unexpected factor. It is … well … fear.

Fear as the sudden shattering discovery of a reality that while it may only decide to reveal itself at the moment … has always been present, simply unseen, in your warm comfortable room. It is a fear embodied in a crushing end of an ignorance … or simply an uncomfortable disruption of easy comfort.

Impossible means being swept into a vast emptiness of bottomless black depths of oceans where, as you are driven deep, you have the unpleasant certainty that your feet are far from any steady ground. It is a fear in which unlike a dream <or nightmare> you are unsure you will awake and see the familiar you left behind when you fell asleep.

“To quote a British observer of us from some years ago, bear with us, once we have exhausted all possible alternatives, the Americans will do the right thing.”

———–

James Mattis

================

Well.

Throughout my life & career I have crisscrossed the country walking into mechanic shops, retail stores, supermarkets, numerous hotels/motels/inns and bars & restaurants.

I went to a public high school with a mostly agriculture student attendance and went to a college where the Crips and Hoover Family Blood patrolled the edges of the campus <and had a gang member stabbed 75 times in the alley behind my off campus apartment>.

In addition, I have received glimpses into the lives of Americans, rural/suburban/urban, behind the one way mirrors of research and face-to-face… in rural West Virginia & Kentucky, Wyoming, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, New York, California, New Mexico, Colorado and … well … pick your home and I have had a glimpse of your life.

I have met the least educated and the most educated <and you most likely would be surprised at how alike they are behind the façade of education> and felt hopeless at the hopelessness of some and found hope in the stories of those who had so much ‘no quit’ in them I felt less than worthy of my own efforts in Life.

I would suggest that what we all have in common in America is maddening. It is the fact we will exhaust all possible alternatives … and then, in most cases, do the right thing.

Love it or hate it … that is what we Americans do.

We are a stubborn folk we Americans. But I tend to believe the ‘exhausting all our alternatives’ is simply the same gauntlet we run time and time again … “I” to “we”.

What? Almost every single person when pushed into a corner <”no one puts Baby into a corner” type attitude> will defend what is possibly the most tried & true American ideal that every American in every corner of the country can pull out of their hip pocket – individual freedom. Freedom to think what I think, freedom to pray like I want to pray, freedom to say what I want to say, freedom to own a gun if I want, freedom to watch, do or go where I want.

Everything begins there.

That is the entrance to the gauntlet. And unlike Dante’s entrance to Hell which says “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate” — most frequently translated as “abandon all hope, ye who enter here” — the American entrance says “this way to something better.”

However, I feel compelled to point out that no matter how much you gussy up a gauntlet … it is still a gauntlet and while it may have some pretty pictures on the walls of the tunnel you are still gonna get the crap kicked out of you.

We don’t take the easy path. That’s just what we do. Despite the fact we talk about common sense or “the simplest is the best” incessantly … America inherently explores all and any alternatives, no matter how painful, until we arrive at what is right.

Mattis reminded me of this.

We never make it easy.

I will note Trump may add a painful dynamic to this characteristic but even without him … we exhaust ourselves as we exhaust all alternatives.

Here is the good news. Our history resides with arriving, ultimately, at the right thing. The arc of our gauntlet tunnel curves toward ‘doing the right thing’ versus ‘doing the wrong thing.’

I imagine my thought for today is twofold.

First is that there is no one person, or class of people, or type of person which ultimately places us in this ‘right thing’ place. This one place is arrived at by the fruits of labor of the many — out of many, one.

The second is that far too often we refer to the ‘many’, people, in demeaning or diminishing terms. We look at people who don’t think the way we do, people who voted for someone else or people who want to do something different than what we want to do as ‘stupid’ or ‘idiots’ or ‘ignorant.’ I can honestly say, having traveled the far corners of America, I would suggest we should maybe see other people as ‘good hearted’ or ‘well intended’ or ‘knows things I don’t know.’

I would also suggest that most people are willing to listen if you are respectful enough to listen to them.

I would also suggest that most people have a story and that story impacts how they think about things and how they decide what should be done with … well … “the we.”

Most people enter the gauntlet with an “I” perspective … even those who fully understand that we are a greater “we.”

We do so because we are part of America which is built upon individual freedoms and each of us value our personal choice. Amusingly <painfully so> it is that individual freedom which permits us the excruciating good conflict that not all the other “I’s” view their individual freedoms the same way. Therefore, the gauntlet is alternative after alternative in which we are painfully bludgeoned into understanding that the “I” makes some compromises for the greater “we”. In addition … we go through the excruciating painful conflict which permits us to see 99% of the other ‘many’ have good hearts, are not really idiots and know shit that we do not know.

We enter the gauntlet as an “I” and come out with a larger respect for the “we.” And it is that gauntlet which hones all the other alternatives into the one alternative which is ‘the right thing.’

Sometimes it helps to remind myself of this.

It helps especially when it doesn’t feel that way … especially when the Warrior Monk, James Mattis, is forced to say it out loud to non-Americans. Because, in my mind, just the fact he has to say it means that we all need to be reminded of it. And, maybe most importantly, as we think about this man … and his words … it permits us to reject the entire concept of “abandon hope all ye who enter” with all of us already who are in this concept called “America.”

Yeah.

It feels painful now. It feels more difficult than it has to be. It feels like there is even less alignment than maybe we had even a year ago.

But maybe it just feels like we are exploring all the alternatives along our way to exhaust all of them n our pursuit to the inevitable – Americans will do the right thing.

Good thought for the day. Well, at least, that is my thought for the day.

‘… supplicate and implore the gods that prosperity may return to the wretched, and abandon the haughty.’

—-

Horace

============

“The unicorn is a lonely, solitary creature that symbolizes hope.”

–

Ally McBeal

============

Ok.

In today’s world we seem to get caught up in the everyday grind of the story of the day. And, yes, most stories don’t reflect the best version of people & society.

What this means is that it can get fairly easy to step on to the slippery slope leading down to a belief we are in some shithole with no leader or steps to get out of it.

And what THAT means <at least to me> is that far too many people are abandoning hope and we desperately need some people to offer us some good ole pragmatic hope.

I say this because … as a reminder … above the entrance to hell <Inferno> in Dante’s Divine Comedy lies the words “abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”

Just to keep you updated on the story … Dante passes through the gate of Hell with this inscription which is the ninth (and final) line <“Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate”>:

————–

Before me things create were none, save things

Eternal, and eternal I endure.

All hope abandon ye who enter here.

—————-

Ah.

And as another reminder of the tale … before entering hell, Dante and his guide (Virgil) see the Uncommitted. The uncommitted represent the souls of people who did nothing in Life.

Yup.

Nothing … neither for good nor evil … just nothing.

To be clear, no, I am not going to suggest everyone read Dante’s Divine Comedy <a tough read for anyone>.

But I will talk about hope <or the lack thereof> & being uncommitted.

I imagine lack of hope is kind of like entering a personal hell.

Which isn’t good for anyone.

So the corollary to that is that I imagine those of us with hope to give should share it whenever we can to get them out of that hell.

Which leads me to … uhm … unicorns.

And I guess about people who see unicorns.

Crazy? Sure. Sounds it.

But hopefully it also makes you think about the people who seem to keep a vision of hope … and use it, however they elect to keep that hope at hand, to help them through the days and weeks.

So.

This thought is actually grounded in an Ally McBeal episode. It, in its oft absurd way, showed how sometimes people go to some extreme, if not bizarre, ways to hold on to some light in seemingly dark days.

And while the episode was about the holidays I thought it was pretty relevant for any day <these days>.

What do I mean?

Well.

I was going to try and right some whizbang words but instead I found something that someone wrote on their blog <sorry … forgot who> that seemed to create the perfect reason for why seeing unicorns is perfectly acceptable:

—————————

What has made it challenging for me to write this is the darkness that I experience through the world’s anguish at this time. I am not living in days of light—I am living in days in need of light. I need to remember in this time of darkness that there are many who are seeking light.

I listen to the rantings of politicians who seem far more caught up in ideology and party positioning than they do in honestly meeting the deep challenges of our economy, the needs of our people, and caring for our planet. I witness the kindest of people being too busy to adequately separate their own food waste and recycling from their trash to reduce the build-up of what is becoming our planetary garbage dump. I witness fires and weather destroying lives and property and then reflect on the consequence of our priorities when we are unable to respond adequately. In this season of cold, I see the homeless in our own community seeking shelter from the wet and the winter.

And even, perhaps, more sharply, I returned from Israel more aware than ever of the incredibly wide divide between the humanity we perceive and the inhumanity shown by the actions of the leaders in that troubled region.

Right here at home, I am troubled by the inaction of so many of us who speak words of reconciliation, words of peace, words of promise, yet continue to find enemies who need to be stopped rather than people who need to be invited into the dialogue.

Yes, all that is true, yet I need to remember in this time of darkness that there are many who are seeking light.

—————————————–

Look.

That sounds … well … dark. But I elect to focus on the ‘light’ or the refusal to give up on hope portion. We need light and, to me, that is hope.

Because of that grind of stories we seem to face every day I do believe a lot of people just seem to be more empty these days.

Well.

Certainly less full of hope if they aren’t completely empty.

And in this Ally McBeal episode someone was fired for saying he saw a unicorn.

Well.

I would imagine all of us would take this with a grain of salt <if not believe the person had completely lost their mind>.

Yet the judge in the episode suggests “there are a lot of lonely people out there, looking for hope in strange places.”

In the end the judge decides that those people can keep their unicorns.

You know?

It sounds a little crazy … and Whipper <the judge on Ally McBeal> was a quasi-nutcase on a show full of nutcases … but … you know what? I agree.

Some people need to believe that they have seen a unicorn. It doesn’t mean they are nuts … people need to find hope however they can … some people just see the unicorn as hope.

And, frankly, (and one of the characters says this also) … why should anyone have any say in where a person may look for that hope?

For god’s sake … all people want to be happy … and different people just get there in different ways.

And if someone elects to use a unicorn?

Well, geez, it could be worse, couldn’t it?

One of the characters in the episode says … “who’s to say the ones who dream of unicorns aren’t the lucky ones these days.”

I know … I know … this sounds nuts … but think about it.

Supposedly people who see them share some of the unicorn’s traits … they may be lonely but with virtuous hearts.

Mythology also suggests that only pure spirits can approach the unicorn.

In the Ally McBeal episode Ally recalls one time when she touched a unicorn and the character who saw it said he didn’t get close to the unicorn … but (here is the part that maybe makes you think a little) … “but he won’t have another chance if he stops believing in the unicorn.”

Ok.

That is a bigger thought than just a wacky tv show.

If we ask all people to stop “believing in unicorns” do people lose any chance of reaching what they hope for?

If we ask people to stop ‘believing in unicorns’ are we asking people to abandon Hope?

Whew.

C’mon.

The unicorn is a symbol of innocence and purity.

I know all of this sounds crazy <and it even looks crazy as I type it> … but … don’t we really want more of these people in today’s world?

In fact … Chinese mythology says the fact that a unicorn has not been seen in many centuries suggests that we are living in “bad” times. It will appear once again when the time is right and when goodness reigns.

So maybe the people who see unicorns are actually the hope for the rest of us. Maybe they are the ones “where goodness reigns.”

Regardless.

Maybe someone who sees a unicorn somehow just feels safer. And I have no right to not allow someone that right in today’s world.

Also <and … boy … coming from a pragmatic realist like me … this is gonna sound really odd> … I don’t know if I can explain it, but knowing that maybe someone out there can actually see a unicorn … well … maybe in a weird way they give me hope.

Now that I have typed that … it reminds me of something else another character said:

——————-

And, I’m afraid say it out loud because maybe if life finds out it’ll try to beat it out of them and that will be a shame.

Because, we all can use a little hope sometimes, you know. That feeling that everything’s going to be okay and that there’s going to be someone there to help make sure of that.

There are people who can make you believe in things you can’t see.

And I think we miss that these days.

———————-

Look.

It’s a hard time for everyone these days but it is a particularly hard time for Hope & dreams these days.

Unfortunately far too many people re being encouraged to think of hope & dreams as some big, fluffy cloud that is surrounded by rainbows and unicorns.

Because of that we tend to dismiss the ‘unicorns & rainbows’ and tend to focus on a mission … that everything in our lives would instantly be perfect if only we could have ABC, or do XYZ.

Well.

Maybe it is that mission ‘focus’ that is really the fantasy … or, at minimum, part of the problem.

Maybe all those ‘missions’ are cramming up all our space that would have held dreams. And, really, this isn’t about going after your dreams but rather dreaming … and having hope … for something good and big and … well … maybe something that isn’t always tangible but intangible that lifts the heart and spirit.

I say all of this knowing that some readers will think this is wacky … but I also hope that people realize there is no right or wrong answer.

Being in the hope business is tricky, and tough, these days.

But.

In fact I almost wish I was in the used rainbow & hope business.

I think people would be willing to buy discount dreams and discounted rainbows. What I mean by that is people would be willing to set aside the ‘big’ dreams and maybe pick up someone else’s that have been discarded … and they still look pretty good to reality.

In the meantime … maybe I should look for some people who make wishes on rainbows and see unicorns and have not abandoned Hope <even if they have done so in some wacky way>.

I know it’s not really in my personal DNA to see unicorns.

And maybe that means I am not one of the lucky ones.

Maybe we need more people who can see unicorns.

Here is what I am absolutely sure we need.

I do know is that hope is a must.

If you don’t have it, you’ve got to find it … lapses in hope happen and are okay … but you have to find it however you must … and maybe that is why I agree with the judge in Ally McBeal … let those people have their unicorns … who am I to judge on how someone holds on to hope.

Regardless.

Ally McBeal was an odd tv show.

But several episodes are must see for everyone.

This is one.

It may just remind you that seeing unicorns isn’t as wacky as you thought it was.

It may just remind you that abandoning Hope is worse than seeing unicorns.

It may just remind you that being uncommitted to Hope, and the things associated with it, is actually worse than being in Hell.

Look.

To me … no hope = hell.

Therefore we should seek our better angels to guide people out of hell and inner angels to keep us from hell.

==========

“Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree.”

—

Martin Luther King, Jr.

================

And, maybe most importantly, by abandoning Hope we have absolved ourselves of one of our greatest responsibilities – the next generation.

If we abandon hope we then fail to provide hope to our young people … and … well … are we not simply encouraging them to enter the gate of hell?

And if we abandon hope and end up doing nothing do we not run the risk of becoming one of the Uncommitted?

Dante was a smart guy. Gave us a lot to think about. Oddly … so did Ally McBeal. We can learn a lot about Hope in a lot of different places … including unicorns.

We need Hope. For if we abandon hope it is quite possible our future is destined to walk thru the gate of hell.

“We are torn between nostalgia for the familiar and an urge for the foreign and strange. As often as not, we are homesick most for the places we have never known.”

—–

Carson Mccullers

=============

Well.

The number one challenge to progress & “living in the present” is old things.

Ok.

Not old things, per se, but how the idea of old things resides in our heads, hearts & minds.

For some reason old things have this incredible knack to not only gain value over time but also increase our hunger for them.

Sure.

Not all things.

Some old things suck, we know they suck and are glad to leave them in some scrap heap in the rear view mirror.

But the old things that didn’t suck?

Whew.

Memories and old things have an incredible magical way of shedding the bad and accumulating good.

Okay.

Maybe they don’t accumulate good but rather ‘basic familiarity’ or ‘low level contentment’ inevitably take on a disproportionately positive value.

They become slightly twisted totems that people are clearly drawn to and become touchstones of ‘when things were better.’

Shit.

“when things were better.”

Who wouldn’t have a hunger for that?

The problem is that I don’t think what most people realize, or maybe recognize, is that it is ideas and thinking which create the light that eliminates the darkness of the fear of the unknown, that new inevitably outshines old … and that nostalgia is best found, mostly, when you find new familiar things and new habits to replace them.

I, personally, have never really seen the allure of most old things. I love old buildings and love museums but, to me, they are simply way stations to new ideas, new thinking and new behavior.

To me the old seems muted and I desire to live loud & bold.

===========

“If you ask me what I came to do in this world, I, an artist, will answer you: I am here to live out loud.”

–

Émile Zola

=================

All that said.

I understand the fact old things have a strange hunger to many people.

In fact.

I would argue that ‘old things’ is an equal opportunity employer.

What I mean by that is we far too often conflate the desire for old things, or holding on to what was old, with generations.

Old people hunger for old things and younger people hunger for new things.

This is simplistically misguided thinking.

When we do this we miss the bigger challenge old things place in front of us. Old things have an insatiable hunger for the human desire for familiarity and the desire for security that can be found within each and every one of us. That insatiable hunger sits in our stomachs and minds in a variety of ways and degrees depending on the individual … regardless of their age.

That hunger resides in older people AND younger people.

Ignoring that means ignoring some basic realities which can be quite costly as you make observations, decision and choices.

This is particularly true in business.

Look.

All of us, everyone, even the riskiest of risk takers like having some safety net.

Not all safety nets are created equal or look similar … but 99.9% of us seek some version of a safety net.

Old things tend to offer us that safety net.

I say that so when we start ridiculing someone, old or young, for appearing to hunger a little too much for old things that maybe we … well … stop ridiculing and start thinking about it a little.

Maybe all someone is doing is seeking their version of a safety net.

Maybe they are seeking something a little familiar and maybe something that offers a little mental security in a world which, frankly, seems to consistently try and demolish all that is familiar & secure.

As I noted when I wrote about ‘optimal newness’ we all desire, and like, some balance. We all find comfort in familiarity and some versions of nostalgia and find excitement in something new.

Old things have a strange hunger for the desire for some familiarity & some ‘secured clarity’ that resides in every single person.

As a studier of behaviors and attitudes I pay attention to this.

As a business guy I pay attention to this.

Old things have earned the right to be totems of times better and familiar.

We should allow them their hunger.

And, yet, as with almost everything in Life … we need to insure people, individuals, manage their diet in order to live healthy lives and have healthy professional careers.

As I just told a business leader last week who was expressing frustration with regard to how some employees were ‘holding on to old things with ragged claws’ … people aren’t nostalgic for old memories they are more nostalgic for familiarity & security.

If you can offer them the same with new things, old things lose their luster.

We have a change the world attitude. We don’t mind being disruptive as long as it is with the intent to create something new and better. Smart disruption displaces the conventional and replaces it with an unconventional way to do things that actually meets what people want, need and expect.

We call what we are doing ‘shaking the category etch a sketch.’

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.”

—–

Bruce McTague

=======================

Ok.

I must get trapped in dozens of discussions & debates over innovative ideas, disruptive ideas and what is “new.”

And thanks to Yale and some guy named Loewy I have a tendency to toss around two phrases a shitload in the conversations — “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” and optimal newness.

<note:<a> ‘optimal newness’ is a relatively new phrase which i have appropriated to replace some of my less eloquent phrases saying the same thought, <b> I have used ‘most advanced yet acceptable’ as a thought for years as it was offered to us by ‘the father of industrial design’, Loewy, in the 1950’s but more recently highlighted in an Atlantic article>

I pull these phrases out of my thought bag of tricks because invariably these “let’s talk about new ideas” conversations get squeezed between two extreme bookends and the phrases help to unsqueeze the thinking.

One bookend is the highly caffeinated entrepreneurial ‘disruptors’ who are convinced they have an idea that no one has ever seen or done before and want to present it as “the coolest thing you have never seen before.”

The other bookend is the pragmatic risk averse “change agent” who proudly presents the same widget which was once painted taupe and is now painted flat black as “new, improved and contemporary.”

By the way.

These bookends actually have names: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new.

This conversational tug of war is a reflection of the basic human truth that we love, and actively seek, familiarity <safeness>… uhm … as well as the thrill of discovery <risk>.

We do this with … well … everything.

Therefore we are almost always torn, slightly or a lot, by these two opposing thoughts.

This is the thinking that led that guy, Loewy, to articulate his industrial design attitude as “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.”

He believed to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising.

This thought is important.

It is important because while an idea can, conservatively, die 101 different ways 2 of the most likely ways to die is <a> you have a surprising, possibly truly disruptive idea, and your inclination it is to make it look spectacularly surprisingly different – therefore scaring the shit out of most people and they do not attach themselves to it, and <b> you have a spectacularly unspectacular useful idea and … well … you undersell it because it is difficult to articulate beyond the familiarity – therefore boring everyone into believing it is not worthy of a ‘new’ label.

And before you beat the crap out of me on all of this The Atlantic article offers a nice proof point to ponder:

In 2014, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Northeastern University wanted to know exactly what sorts of proposals were most likely to win funding from prestigious institutions such as the National Institutes of Health—safely familiar proposals, or extremely novel ones?

They prepared about 150 research proposals and gave each one a novelty score. Then they recruited 142 world-class scientists to evaluate the projects.

The most-novel proposals got the worst ratings. Exceedingly familiar proposals fared a bit better, but they still received low scores. “Everyone dislikes novelty,” Karim Lakhani, a co-author, explained to me, and “experts tend to be overcritical of proposals in their own domain.” The highest evaluation scores went to submissions that were deemed slightly new.

I shared this research to show that even the dullest deserves some surprise & novelty while “new” has some limits when trying to communicate the pragmatic <both of which are important with regard to … well … almost everything>.

That said.

I think the real point here is that you need to find the sweet spot … that there is an “optimal newness” for ideas or, well, how about we call it “advanced yet acceptable”.

So why do we always have this struggle?

Well … in business the challenge seems to be the business world has put an incredibly high value on <perceived> innovation & disruption and a lesser, if not nonexistent, value on <real> functionality & highly pragmatic thinking & ideas.

This out of whack valuation steers some business people to some extremely shallow misguided thinking and hollow ideation.

Nowhere is this found more often than when discussing “disruptive ideas” and innovation … which are the two “phases that pay” when we talk about new.

We use these words to imply this idea will change the world <and more often than not it is just a nice idea which will make an impact in its own little universe … assuming it doesn’t die a quick death>, therefore, it becomes the only type of idea we should pay attention to.

In other words … if it’s not disruptive, its crap.

Well.

That’s bullshit.

The truth is that many, if not most, of the most foundational ‘innovative’ or new ideas the world has ever seen tend to be the most overlooked, unseen to the naked eye, unobtrusive ‘disruptors’ we have ever interacted with.

The truth is that most effective useful disruptive ideas are almost always leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior as well a ‘things’> from which your idea will end up tapping into.

I say that with two thoughts in mind:

something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … nothing.

smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

Ponder them <not too much because it will make your head hurt> … but everyone should keep these two thoughts in mind whenever seeking optimal newness – you cannot create something from nothing.

Anyway.

In today’s business world “new” and “disruptive” are inextricably linked.

This is a shame.

It does not benefit either concept or idea to do this.

New is … well … new. No more and no less <although there are certainly degrees of new>.

Disruption actually means ‘to challenge.’ And, despite what many want you to believe, disruption is actually about creating something … not simply to destroy something.

I would actually suggest that disruption, at its core, is about changing the way you think – creating new ways to think about something.

Think about it.

Conventions train us to do the conventional.

I say that because accepted beliefs <conventional thinking>, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking.

Therefore, constructing new accepted beliefs may not mean destroying the old, the familiar, but rather creating a new way of thinking and creating a new familiar.

All this becomes important as you consider what would be “optimal newness.”

Because as we wander aimlessly between the hyperbole of disruptive and new … well … many new ideas are simply a fresh derivative of ‘familiarity.’

I say this to make a point.

Optimal newness, 95% of the time, leverages some familiarity … something existing … and it is grounded in some reality that people can grasp.

Therein lies a truth “optimal newness” never loses sight of.

The biggest ideas with the biggest end impact on our lives typically have gained some momentum not because they were some huge ‘new, never seen before’ idea but rather because the innovated on some conventional thinking and shifted us into some different way of thinking about something.

Maybe we should think about it this way … if today’s innovators have been successful … have seen farther than others before … it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants … well … maybe stood on the shoulders of something that already existed.

Regardless.

I read somewhere in one of those bullshit pop psychology pieces that confident people are better than most people at seeking out small victories … they don’t necessarily need “big” ideas or maniacally pursue being called a ‘disruptor’ as they pursue success.

I tend to believe confidence can reside in comfort within ‘optimal newness.’

That the confident business people know that newness doesn’t have to be splashy nor hyperbole driven but rather surprising functionality.

And maybe that is the larger point with regard to ‘optimal newness’ and ‘most advanced yet acceptable.’ In business these days we seem to either believe “go big or go home” and therefore either overplay our hand or completely underplay it <because it isn’t big enough>.

Just think about that last thought as you ponder the last dozen good ideas you have seen die before your eyes.

I will end by stating, unequivocally, that this is easier to write about then to put into practice.

Shit.

Finding the ‘optimal’ anything in business is hard.

All I know is that every time I have this discussion with a sales group talking about selling, an innovations group talking about articulating an innovation or even a CEO about ‘organizational change management’ I get a lot of cocked heads as they think about it a little.

Here was the most interesting note: least expensive or most expensive?

Huh?

It costs you nothing to be a decent person but it can still be an expensive decision. This may sound incredibly cynical but deciding to be decent is not a zero sum decision … it is a Life value equation.

I decide to do this <be decent> or do not do this <not be decent> and ‘this’ is the repercussion of that decision <the value or lost opportunity/gain>.

Yeah.

By being decent in the business world you can be viewed as ‘too nice’ and get mangled by some cutthroat asshat.

By being decent in Life you can be viewed as naive and get taken advantage of by those willing to ‘do what it takes.’

Therefore, oddly and unfortunately, decency can ultimately be assessed in ROI terms by many of us in our lives.

Boy … that sounds pretty fucked up when I say it out loud.

Ok.

So someone may argue with the ROI thing but maybe think of it this way …

You walk by 4 homeless people but give the 5th one you see $20. Does the $20 balance out the fact you ignored the other 4? You were decent but selectively so.

Don’t like that?

So set aside the money.

You walk by 4 homeless veterans … never acknowledging them or looking at them … the 5th homeless vet you stop for a second and look them in the eye and say “thank you for your service.” Does the one you give some dignity to zero out the 4 you completely disregarded?

Unfortunately, decency is an ROI assessment. And more excruciatingly … it is an assessment made moment by moment as well as cumulatively.

What I mean by that is decency is mutually exclusive not inclusive … and decent moments are independent of other moments <when you may not have been so, or as, decent> … not interdependent <warning: I most likely mangled the meanings of both mutually exclusive and independent>.

—-

Mutually exclusive events cannot happen at the same time. For example: when tossing a coin, the result can either be heads or tails but cannot be both. Events are independent if the occurrence of one event does not influence (and is not influenced by) the occurrence of the other(s).

—-

You do not accumulate ‘decency points’ in Life or in business.

Not being decent cannot be equaled out by being extraordinarily decent in another moment.

Yeah.

That doesn’t sound particularly fair does it?

But you have to think that way or you start thinking about decency in a conscious decision making balance sheet sort of way. “well, I am not going to be particularly decent in this situation because to do so I may not benefit as much as I believe I deserve” and then a couple days later you consciously say to yourself “I was kind of a dickwad the other day so maybe if I am particularly decent now that will make up for it.”

I absolutely hated myself for scribbling any thought down that suggested there was a cost to being a decent person. Fucking hated even having the thought.

But no matter how much I hated it … it surely does seem like it is a Life truth.

To me there is only one way to resolve this ‘self dilemma’ and it is an ‘either/or’ thought.

You accept the fact you are gonna be a decent human being all the time and accept that the chips will fall as they may throughout Life … and they may not all fall your way <and you can spend your last days on earth feeling pretty good about yourself from a character standpointby realizing a Big life can often be found in a shitload of small victories>.

Or.

You accept the fact that situational decisions are situational decisions and you are a decent person at heart therefore you seek to view life, in the end, as “I was more often decent than I wasn’t” <and a Big life meant you bucked the odds of a world constantly trying to encourage non-decency and you won more often than you lost>.

I cannot choose the path for you.

But I will state that simply recognizing that this is the dilemma we face in Life … and that this is basically your choice … you have accepted that being a decent person is an ROI analysis.

“Shut the fuck up … don’t ever compliment me by insulting other women. That’s not a compliment; it’s a competition none of us agreed to.”

—

(via aussie-with-glasses)

==============

Ok.

This isn’t about society & women & standards <although I have written many times on that topic> this is about competitions we don’t agree to.

Many of us can go through life doing the best we can trying to get along and, in general, view most things in life as a journey and not some race and … well … sometimes people, things and society have a different view.

What this means is you are demanded to compete in some competition you really never agreed to.

Let me explain.

There are absolutely a bunch of people out there who define themselves by competition.

They seek to find validation & actualization through some comparison versus what others are doing <this, basically, is competition>.

And then there are people like me <I do not know how many there are of us but I imagine it is a fairly significant %>. While I like winning and, on occasion, a good competition gets the heart rate up and ‘ups my game’ the majority of the time I don’t view Life when I wake up and go to work as a competition with anyone and anything but myself.

I simply want to do good things, epic shit of possible, do the best I can and better than I did yesterday. I guess my competition is yesterday … not other people.

That said. I am not naïve. I know that everyday I wake up and go to work I am entering into ‘the Thunderdome’ and entering into some competition that I didn’t really agree to.

=========

“Life doesn’t get easier or more forgiving, we get stronger and more resilient.”

—

Steve Maraboli

============

I don’t like it.

But I recognize it.

And, as often as I can, I avoid the competitions I don’t agree to.

By the way … if you google “how to deal with competitions you do not agree to” you will get zilch, zero, no results on that topic.

None.

Ponder that for a second.

All that said.

This does mean that you receive compliments as well as criticisms based on competitions you didn’t agree to.

And that is aggravating.

It is like you are being judged by the Race Walking Olympic judges, with scores you don’t really care about, because you were just out jogging that day.

Day in and day out people who really do not want to compete, other than with their own standards, are faced with having to accommodate competition they didn’t agree to.

What a fucking pain in the ass.

And … I would point out … it sounds incredibly inefficient and time wasting.

Look.

I am not suggesting some competition isn’t bad. I am suggesting that we go fucking overboard with regard to ‘forcing competition’ into all threads of Life & society & culture.

I do believe it is healthy for young people to understand that in competition some people win and some people lose and that some people get trophies and not everyone gets one <although getting a trophy is not all there is to success & Life>.

I do believe it is healthy in youth to understand that some people are smarter than others, that some have skills you don’t have and that some people more easily learn some things than you do.

I do believe it is healthy for young people to learn how to compete and that competition can be healthy.

But at some point I think it would be good for society & culture to either turn that switch off or maybe learn how to turn on the dimmer switch because I think part of being an adult is knowing what you are good at and what you may not be good at and deciding for yourself <some would call that personal responsibility> how you want to achieve the best version of yourself.

I am not convinced that society, and business, creating some false versions of competition which almost encourages me to compete in some competition I really didn’t agree to, let alone really want to compete, is a good thing.

I tend to believe people like me think our competition is harsher and more challenging than any competition society can create for me and because of that I tend to want to dismiss outside competitions.

Yeah.

That choice is fraught with peril.

Suffice it to say … just knowing that there is peril in not wanting to compete in some competition I didn’t even agree to is aggravating.

“We all have a personal pool of quicksand inside us where we begin to sink and need friends and family to find us and remind us of all the good that has been and will be.”

—-

Regina Brett

==============

“Making the best of things is… a damn poor way of dealing with them.

My whole life has been a series of escapes from that quicksand.”

—-

Rose Wilder Lane

=========

Well.

We all encounter setbacks in our lives. Some people call that ‘life.’

The positive psychologists just call the setbacks “obstacles” as if they were some hurdles you just learn to either leap or get around.

In other words … it is assumed if you stick to your guns no setback is a dead end but rather simply a speed bump.

In other words … we are offered some simplistic discussions about overcoming obstacles.

If you really really think about this … this advice is kind of nuts.

Yeah.

You may have to think really hard to come on to my side of this argument.

You may have to work hard because as soon as you are old enough to comprehend words you get bludgeoned with advice and wisdom with regard to ‘overcoming obstacles.’

In its most simplistic form it is uttered as “if you believe, you can overcome anything” or even the famous “it’s not the mistake that matters it is what you do with that mistake.”

You get pummeled with things like this:

===============

“Do not fear the conflict, and do not flee from it; where there is no struggle, there is no Virtue.”

―

Joyram

===========

“When you start living the life of your dreams, there will always be obstacles, doubters, mistakes and setbacks along the way.

But with hard work, perseverance and self-belief there is no limit to what you can achieve.”

―

Roy Bennett

=============

Well.

I don’t doubt the sincerity of this advice but what all of this trite wisdom, mostly offered by wealthier & whiter people whose setbacks are slightly different … okay … exponentially different, then not only the everyday schmuck but those who are in more vulnerable environments seems to overlook is that Asetback is manageable … persistent setbacks are a whole different game.

I love virtue but after a while you cannot sustain yourself, mentally and physically, on virtue alone when faced with persistent setbacks.

What I mean is that we treat setbacks as if they were like a cold … with a little time and some fortitude and some chicken noodle soup you can overcome it and move on.

But sometimes setbacks are like a virus … this virus is more like ‘persistent setbacks.’

And, yes, this is different than what I call “quicksand” or “quicksand setbacks.”

Quicksand setbacks are more often in a defined period of time and comes to fruition mostly in a helpless unraveling before your eyes.

It’s like in a football game where one fumble leads to an interception which leads to the other team running a punt back for a touchdown. Everyone fights as hard as they can … but the setbacks stream in a way that drives you deeper and deeper into a hole. Most times quicksand setbacks stop and depending on the quicksand you are in a deep dark fucking hole or just a hole <or something in-between>.

A hole is a hole. It sucks.

But most times if you do get your shit together, get your head on straight and maybe get a little help you can get out of the hole <regardless of how deep it is>. And once you get out of a quicksand hole you actually find you have learned some stuff and … well … most times you see future quicksand and avoid it.

And then there are persistent setbacks.

….. and, yet, the opportunities can only be found in darker deeper holes ………..

They are brutal.

Fucking brutal.

You face a setback.

You pick yourself up, recover and get going again. And maybe just as you get going again … well … you get another setback.

This one hurts a little more because you knew you had invested and you knew you had done it right … and you still got screwed again with another setback.

You figure … what the hell … I did it once and I can do it again and you pick yourself up again and get going, recover and you are starting to put the last setback in your rear view mirror and … doh … another setback.

This one hurts. Hurts bad.

But … you know you have no alternative but to get up, try again and get going.

This time is a little different though. This time you are a little more tentative.

Maybe even doubt a little more. You still put energy into it and you are working hard but this time your head is more on a swivel.

Uhm.

And then another setback happens.

Most will get up and go again. But this time doubt is your companion and while you are trying your best … you are most likely not really your best.

And then another setback happens.

This is where the trite positive ‘pick yourself up’ people sort of get things wrong.

It’s not that you don’t have the desire … you just have lost hope that you will ever get a break or that it will finally be someone else who will have a setback and not you.

Sigh.

I read this quote somewhere:

“Time to bet on yourself, big, huge, gigantic bet on your genius and abilities to change the world for the better because nothing is going to stop you, no force is going to hold you down or get in your way and make you lose your inner motivation again.”

Well.

That sound good … really good … but persistent setbacks are a whole different game. You can be motivated, you can bet on yourself and all of those things <which are usually necessary for any success> but … well … what happens if you have to keep on going back to the well again and again and again?

What happens when Life just seems to provide one more setback after you have just recovered and gained some momentum for the last setback … which you had done after the setback before that one and … well … you get it.

There is only so much anyone can take before they get tired … start having doubts … and then simply lose hope.

Look.

Everyone can pull themselves together after a setback.

A quicksand setback is a little trickier but depending on deeply you sink … most people can pull themselves together.

But persistent setbacks? Whew.

You aren’t looking for a big break … you are just looking for A break.

When in a persistent setback cycle … it is relentlessly exhausting.

Your plans all seem to not go as planned.

You can do your best, and it may actually be pretty good, and it can still fail.

You can be really smart, have a smart idea, articulate it smartly, and it can still be rejected or ignored.

You can work harder than anyone else and pour your heart & soul into something and it can still go unnoticed.

And all of that gets exponentially harder to take with each ongoing setback.

In addition … persistent setbacks take on a darker hue if you start looking around you and see mediocrity winning and rising and some of the least qualified not facing the setbacks you are.

Now.

I did some research.

And I found how we deal with setbacks depends on how much control someone feels they have over a situation.

The study found that changes in certain brain areas were related to persisting with goals after encountering setbacks.

Participants more often persisted with their goals, choosing to try again to earn the same academic degree, when they perceived they had control over a setback than if they perceived that they did not have control over a setback.

What’s more, activity in a brain area called the ventral striatum was related to persisting with goals in cases where the setbacks were controllable. Participants who showed greater decreases in brain activity in the ventral striatum when they encountered a controllable setback were more likely to persist with their goals.

On the other hand, changes in a brain area called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex were related to persistence when the setbacks were uncontrollable. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex is involved in regulation of emotions, and the new study suggests this brain area helps people cope with negative emotions in order to persist in the case of uncontrollable setbacks.

In other words … when setbacks are uncontrollable they affect us in a more emotional way.

Yup. When persistent setbacks seem to continue in ways that are out f our control … well … they fucking kick the shit out of you mentally.

I say that because I think most of us overlook how persistent setbacks affect the mind.

And while I just outlined how I believe it affects an individual … there is also an effect on the people around you.

Say you are a parent and you are in this doomed cycle of persistent setbacks.

As a child that is all you see. That is all you hear about. That is what you start thinking Life is more like than what you see on TV with regard to ‘work harder than anyone else and your dreams can come true <or you can do anything you want>.’

Let me tell you what I mean by showing you some research numbers I just saw.

Among the dozens of research studies post 2016 election I found some number about the working class and education that made me sit up a little and think about this whole ‘persistent setback’ issue and how … if it is affects a swath of the population long enough … can affect their larger attitudes.

In an analysis by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic 54% of white working-class Americans said investing in college education is a risky gamble … this includes a whopping 61% of white working-class men <white working-class voters who held this belief were almost twice as likely as their peers to support Trump>.

Ok.

That is bad. But it gets worse.

This belief is even more prevalent among white working-class Americans under 30.

This belief means that they are not buying into the idea that if you do work really hard, if you do study and go to school, you will be able to get ahead.

In my persistent setback theory we have an entire swath of America who has given up hope that they can ‘overcome the setbacks and get ahead.”

“The survey shows that many white working-class Americans, especially men, no longer see that path available to them. … It is this sense of economic fatalism, more than just economic hardship, that was the decisive factor in support for Trump among white working-class voters.”

<Robert P. Jones, the CEO of PRRI>

I don’t really want to discuss Trump voters and white working class people today but I do want to make a point about persistent setbacks and how they affect people’s attitudes.

Any setback sucks. I don’t care how old you are … a setback is a setback and depending on where you are in life a setback can be crushing.

All the positive encouragement to pick yourself up and get going again kind of misses the mark. I don’t offer a solution today I am just making a point and bitching.

And all the bitching aside.

Everyone just needs to recognize that setbacks come in all shapes and sizes, not all setbacks are created equal, setbacks can be deceiving in their appearances and if you don’t recognize all that you run the risk of missing what someone else is enduring with regard to persistent setbacks.